2010-2011

IV serie - anno I, 2010-2011 Spedizione postale gruppo IV 70%

SilvanaEditoriale Lynley Anne Herbert

DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN : BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

Estratto dalla rivista Arte Medievale IV serie - anno I, 2010-2011 - pagine 97-120 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE Lynley Anne Herbert

tiny but complex work by the Sienese monly accepted views. Several scholars have painter Duccio di Buoninsegna, previ- understood the Virgin as standing behind a Aously known to scholarship as the parapet,7 the meaning of which was most tren- Stroganoff or Stoclet Madonna,1 was purchased chantly explained by the wall text from the in November of 2004 for $ 45 million dollars by Metropolitan Museum’s 2005 exhibition of its the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York newly acquired painting, which described it as 2 1 [1]. Commonly dated to c. 1300, this 8 /4 by 11 «a device that simultaneously connects and sep- inch painting (21 cm by 27,9 cm), which I will arates the timeless, hieratic realm of the paint- henceforth refer to as the Metropolitan ing and the real space and time of the viewer».8 Madonna, was hailed by the Metropolitan In his recent article about the acquisition, Keith Museum as a work by one of the «founders of Christiansen, the Metropolitan Museum’s Cu- Western European painting».3 Such a view pres- rator of European Paintings, suggested that the ents Duccio with the benefit of hindsight. angle of the corbels relates to the intended Through the filter of the Renaissance, Duccio’s viewing of the painting as one kneels in prayer.9 work is seen as art, and he as artist. The Scholars have tended to interpret the Child as Metropolitan Museum’s press release claimed playful, which they believed was a new invention that with this painting, «Duccio has redefined by Duccio intended to show Christ in a more the way in which we relate to the picture: not as human, realistic way by creating a tender interac- an ideogram or abstract idea, but as an analogue tion between a mother and child as might be seen to human experience».4 This formulation seems in life.10 In his article, Christiansen applied Hans to frame a contrast with other images that are Belting’s poetic assessment of this same gesture in ‘abstract ideas’, and alludes to the common con- Duccio’s Madonna di Crevole to the Metropolitan ception of the pictures called ‘icons’ in modern Madonna. Belting explained that Duccio: scholarship, pictures associated with the medieval and Byzantine tradition. Yet this is the «…surprises us with the playful behavior of the Child, who grasps his Mother’s veil as if he wanted to distract very tradition upon which Duccio’s paintings her from her melancholy. Like the realism of the Child’s build. Divorcing him from that, and setting up a costume, the tender touch suggests a private idyll of the strong dichotomy between Eastern, medieval nursery…».11 «icons» and Western, Renaissance ‘art’ creates a false and violent break with tradition that Christiansen himself, in his recent book pub- Duccio himself would not have experienced.5 In lished by the Metropolitan Museum, suggests this paper I will argue for new ways of under- that the Child is «reaching up to push aside his standing Duccio’s Metropolitan Madonna – not mother’s veil so he can see her» which he looking back from the Renaissance, but instead believes was intended to strike «a chord so looking forward from a medieval and specifical- familiar as to make this image register as real».12 ly Byzantine tradition, and ultimately at its con- Another interpretation, by John White, consid- text in at the dawn of the 14th century. ered this motif a «gesture of affection and com- It is perhaps more appropriate to begin munication» with which the Child comforts His exploring this topic with a brief discussion of mother in anticipation of her future sadness.13 the painting in question.6 It depicts the Virgin Overall, this painting has been viewed as a cre- Mary holding the Christ Child on her left arm, ative, new, emotionally accessible interpretation with an unusual row of architectural corbels of an outdated theme, and more importantly, a running along the bottom of the image. As I true work of art rather than a cult object whose will offer my own interpretation of this work functional aspect predominated over its emo- below, I would like to first present some com- tional or aesthetic qualities.14

97 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

1. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Duccio di Buoninsegna, Metropolitan Madonna, c. 1300.

The Metropolitan Museum’s enthusiasm for reviewers cynically pondered better uses for the this painting is understandable. Although the money,16 most faithfully characterized this as a cost was enormous, the Museum’s then landmark Renaissance painting by one of the Director Philippe de Montebello defended this first true great Western artists.17 The exhibition extravagant expenditure by explaining that it created around the Duccio at the museum fills a gap, and «the addition of the Duccio will emphasized this idea, and its place as one of the enable visitors for the first time to follow the first expressions of Renaissance art seemed sup- entire trajectory of European painting from its ported by the plethora of ‘Duccesque’ beginnings to the present».15 While some Madonnas grouped with it in the room, as well

98 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

2. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Icon with the Virgin Eleousa, early 14th century. Gift of John C. Weber, in honor of Philippe de Montebello, 2008.

as the later works that followed in the adjoining The Byzantine tradition was clearly influential to gallery. Yet, permanently hung in an art gallery this painter’s work, yet there was no Eastern art, for the first time in its 700 years of existence, or even significantly earlier Western art dis- and treated as ‘art’, this small, intimate devo- played with the Duccio. The exclusion of such tional painting almost appeared out of place, material denied the viewer the chance to make and had difficulty competing with the ornate comparisons that would support the wall text’s it is believed to have inspired. assertion that «…the picture marks the transi- If Duccio inspired all of this, what inspired tion from medieval to Renaissance image mak- Duccio? He was not creating art in a vacuum. ing».18 While this statement was rather vague,

99 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

the press release was more precise, stating that without the other. Duccio’s work, and especial- «Duccio’s infusion of life into time-worn, ly the Metropolitan Madonna, is strongly evoca- Byzantine schemes» was probably influenced by tive of Eastern art, and of Byzantine icons. For popular devotional and love poetry, as well as Hans Belting an icon, or ‘Holy Image’, referred ’s frescoes, and that «it was an art that pre-eminently to the venerated «images of per- embraced the complex and varied world of sons that were used in processions and pilgrim- human experience, rather than one based on ages and for whom incense was burned and codified types, as had been the case with candles were lighted».26 This included private medieval and Byzantine painting. Duccio icons, which were characterized by their small responded by exploring in his own art this new scale and emotional expressiveness.27 Duccio’s world of sentiment and emotional response…».19 Metropolitan Madonna explicitly recalls this This emphasis on the newness of emotional tradition. It is icon-like in its golden field, its and human qualities in these images, and the emotive quality, and its small, portable size. It assertion that this was an ‘Italian’ invention of represents the ‘Holy Images’ of two people, this period, is questionable. Far from being a both the Virgin and Christ, whose half-length Western novelty, this was more likely an aspect portrait type was, according to Belting, reintro- that was coming from the East, particularly dur- duced to the West from the East, and reflects ing the Palaeologan era. This period saw the the legend of the miracle-working authentic flowering of a poignant iconography character- portrait that St. Luke painted of the Madonna ized by scholars as the Mother of God and Child.28 I will argue below that the Eleousa,20 or literally ‘Mother of Tenderness’ or Metropolitan Madonna was in fact designed to ‘Merciful’, which was well established by the retain something of that magical quality, and year 1300, as can be seen in a micromosaic at would likely have been considered apotropaic the Metropolitan Museum [2].21 The Metro- by its patron. We even know that the Metro- politan Madonna draws heavily on this type, as politan Madonna was actually used and vener- well as on the more formal iconography that ated in the way that Belting associates with scholars refer to as the Hodegetria,22 or ‘She Byzantine icons, evidence for which is physical- who shows the way’, which was based on the ly present in the burn marks left by centuries of famous icon in Constantinople that depicted candles having been lit along the bottom of the Mary holding the Child on her left arm and pre- frame.29 No aspect of this painting would pre- senting him to the worshipper. Duccio’s debt to vent it from being used or characterized as an Byzantine art has in fact long been recognized. icon. Perhaps rather than focusing on how James Stubblebine discussed the issue at some Duccio disrupted this tradition, we should be length in his 1966 article «Byzantine Influence asking how, and why, he embraced it. in Thirteenth-century Italian Panel Painting».23 The main hesitation to view Duccio’s paint- Stubblebine argued for a close, careful relation- ing in this way appears to have been due to the ship between Duccio’s paintings and the con- place of its creation, and the nationality of its temporary artistic currents of the East, and in creator. That Duccio was Italian seems to have particular those coming from Constantinople. exempted him from the possibility that he John White, in his 1979 monograph on Duccio, might have desired to retain an iconic function asserted that «at every stage of his career, the in his work, and to exempt his patrons from connections with Byzantine art are as visible as desiring it. Of course, it must be remembered they are vital».24 Anne Derbes has further that much of what gives an image power lies in argued that there was an open and enthusiastic how it is viewed and used, and ultimately we artistic reciprocity between the Sienese and the cannot know the beliefs of its original owner of Levant during Duccio’s formative years.25 The the panel who is, in any event, unidentified. current tendency to stress Duccio’s efforts to However, one’s location or nationality need not break with Eastern tradition within his be taken as defining beliefs. There was in fact a Metropolitan Madonna is at odds with this ear- strong interest in, and belief in the power and lier scholarship, to which it does not respond. importance of, Byzantine icons and imagery in However, even those who support a Byzantine the West in the 13th and 14th century. After the connection tend to do so on an aesthetic, rather Latin invasion of Constantinople in 1204, than functional, level. I would argue that we Byzantine icons of all types flowed into Italy, should not assume one aspect was adopted and into Venice in particular. The church of S.

100 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

Marco became, according to Belting, «a pil- images. Venice even adopted the 11th century grimage church of the Byzantine kind».30 Many Constantinopolitan icon they called the of these images were seen as extremely power- Nicopeia, taken during the siege on Constan- ful, even miraculous, and both original Eastern tinople and credited with the Latin victory, as images and replicas of them were quickly dis- its palladium.40 Eastern images were intention- seminated throughout Italy.31 In , a late ally used or referred to, and for a reason – it was 13th century Byzantine mosaic was given pride believed they had immense spiritual power.41 of place in a renowned reliquary at the Basilica Harnessing that power would have been an di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme.32 At least one important goal for the painter and his patron. Byzantine icon was in Siena by the time Duccio The desires of the patron are an important was painting, for a 13th century icon of the issue to consider here, for since Duccio Madonna and Child, inscribed «Mother of depended on commissions for his livelihood, he God» in Greek, belonged to the Chiesa del would have had to adhere to their demands. Carmine.33 Paintings and manuscripts known Therefore, to read into the Metropolitan in scholarship as «crusader art», works pro- Madonna modern ideas about artistic creativity, duced in Eastern provinces for the Crusaders wherein the artist tries to break free of conven- that often blended Eastern and Western tion and do something radically new, is prob- iconography, were also circulating throughout lematic and anachronistic. As Anthony Cutler the West.34 has succinctly put it, «until the 16th century Hayden Maginnis has argued for an increas- none of the cultures to which we have referred ingly miraculous view of images in the West ‘conceived’ [his emphasis] of originality in our after 1200, which he attributed to the Western sense, let alone thought it virtuous».42 This is presence in Crete, Cyprus, and Constantinople. not to say that artists could not be innovative, He suggested this exposure both led to the only that their form of creativity may not fit our «absorption of Eastern thought» and «influ- modern conceptions. enced expectations of how images might The supposedly unique elements of this behave».35 There were numerous accounts of painting warrant a closer examination. The the miraculous activities of icons in Italy at that Child’s gesture has been seen as a new inven- time. For instance, the possibility of interacting tion with which Duccio was experimenting, with an image’s prototype through the image thought to convey the human interaction itself was not only believed in, but also actively between a playful child and his mother and promoted through saints’ legends. St. Francis’ viewed as a realistic detail taken from life expe- conversion due to the miraculous intervention rience.43 I would argue, however, that Duccio of Christ through a painted crucifix was a well- was doing something very different. As John established tale by the time Duccio was work- White pointed out, the Child appears to be ing.36 This miracle was actually absent from comforting the Virgin in her sadness.44 Duccio Thomas of Celano’s original account of Francis’ was working with a Byzantine type, that of the life, and in fact only appeared in the second Life lamenting mother of the Threnos, known in of 1240, written 35 years after the event would Italy as the Mater Dolorosa or ‘Mother of have taken place.37 The addition of this story in Sorrows’, but used it in a new way. Compare, the later revision perhaps indicates an increased for instance, Duccio’s Madonna with that from interest in and acceptance of the power of one of ’s late 13th century crucifixes images in Italy by the mid 13th century. St. [3].45 Note the inclination of her head, as well as Catherine was also converted due to her con- the bunched cloth that she holds to her eyes. templation of a panel painting through which Although here the cloth is a separate element, she interacted with the prototypes, and in that there are other instances, such as a c. 1300 case it was the Madonna and Child.38 An icon of Venetian triptych now in a private collection in Christ in Venice even bled when it was cut with Dordrecht, where she uses her very veil to dab knives in 1290.39 her eyes.46 The similarity of her pose and ges- Most of the image types circulating in Italy at ture to that found in the Duccio painting is this time either drew upon or claimed to be uncanny, only Christ’s hand has replaced Eastern art. Eastern images were not treated Mary’s in holding the cloth to her eyes to catch just as booty, or curiosities, but were instead her tears, the future event recognized by Him often given more authority than Western in His omniscience.

101 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

3. Arezzo, San Domenico. Cimabue, Crucifix, detail, the Virgin Mary.

The recognition of and intentional interplay visibly juxtaposed the two events in his early between the Mother and Child and the Mother 14th century triptych of the Crucifixion [5]. The of Sorrows had a strong artistic and linguistic position of Mary’s head and the expression on tradition in the Byzantine world. Constanti- her face are nearly identical in both of her roles nople’s most famous icon, the Hodegetria, was as new mother and Mother of Sorrows. double-sided and depicted the Virgin and I propose that Duccio was trying to create an Child on one side, and the Crucifixion on the image of deeper meaning by combining several other.47 In literature, the connection was explic- Byzantine image types, for in this image can be itly made in the Virgin’s lament in the Greek found the formality of the Hodegetria, the ten- recension of the Acta Pilati.48 Similar concepts derness of the Eleousa, and what I perceive to in texts and art had been transmitted to Italy by be the foreshadowed compassion and sadness the 13th century, as Anne Derbes and Rebecca of the lamenting mother of the Threnos. Its Corrie have demonstrated.49 A close parallel to poignancy is heightened by the Child’s loving the iconography of the Constantinopolitan gesture, and certainly this interpretation, trac- Hodegetria can in fact be found in an Umbrian ing Duccio’s inventive manipulation of various diptych from 1260 [4].50 That Duccio under- sources, does not detract from, but rather adds stood this relationship is unquestionable, for he to, Duccio’s accomplishment. However, those

102 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

4. London, The . Virgin and Child and the Man of Sorrows, diptych, c. 1260.

5. London, The Royal Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Duccio di Buoninsegna and workshop, Crucifixion with Mary and John, c. 1308-1311.

103 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

who wish to view this as a Renaissance painting Martini’s painting comes two decades after may not agree, for this form of creativity may Duccio’s, and the ledge along the bottom is have more in common with medieval artistic both visually completely different, lacking the practices, where painters worked from received corbel motif, and contains an inscription, there- traditional types rather than directly from by taking on a different function. In fact, none ‘nature’. Recent scholarship has begun to rec- of the suggested comparisons date earlier than ognize similar inventive reuse and recombina- this, leaving a generational gap between tion of Byzantine image types in Duccio’s Duccio’s work and anything similar, works that Tuscan predecessors. Rebecca Corrie has even then do not use the corbels we see in argued that Coppo di Marcovaldo, when paint- Duccio. I would argue that a seemingly similar ing the Madonna del Bordone for Siena in 1261, motif’s use at a later date is not proof of «brought together a group of motifs derived Duccio’s intentions. from Eastern images whose meanings and Are there other ways of understanding the power he and his clients understood».51 A simi- corbelled ledge in the Metropolitan Madonna? lar argument has been made for Cimabue’s It seems to invoke the da sotto in su effect so painted crucifixes by Anne Derbes, who often used in Italian painting to create the illu- claimed that «much that is new here stems not sion of seeing something from below, yet this from Cimabue’s success in liberating himself painting is much too small to be set up high from Byzantium, but rather from his apprecia- enough for this effect to have worked correct- tive study of images recently introduced from ly.57 The motif itself was consistently employed Byzantium».52 While still creating something by painters to convey architecture at a great new and of artistic value, these artists ultimate- height, often as a cornice indicating the top of a ly chose to integrate specific Eastern image wall or the bottom edge of a roof. That this illu- types into their work, and I suggest that Duccio sionistic device was understood and used in this was consciously working within this tradition. way can be demonstrated both before and after The final and most distinctly different ele- Duccio painted his Metropolitan Madonna ment in this painting, the so-called ‘parapet’, around 1300. has been the subject of much discussion.53 In In the 13th century this architectural element 1979 John White set the tone: was used in the often attributed to Giotto in the church of St. Francis in , «…it now stands as the first, lonely forerunner of that such as in the Dream of pope Innocent III [7]. long line of Italian Madonnas with a parapet which Here the same painted corbels have been used achieved its finest flowering almost two centuries later to indicate height in two ways – both in the in Giovanni Bellini’s splendid variations on the theme».54 faux architecture high on the wall of the church above which the itself was placed, as well Hindsight is not always reliable. A compari- as in the cornice of the church Saint Francis son of Duccio’s Madonna and Bellini’s paint- holds within the painting. Many of the frescos ings reveal they have little in common, for in Assisi use this architectural motif, and their Bellini went to great lengths to situate his height allows it to be viewed more or less at the Madonna and Child figures into an actual spa- correct perspective. Scholars often compare tial setting with a background [6]. They inter- Duccio’s motif to that used in Assisi since they act with the architectural ledge, which is entire- are confident he visited there, and if in fact he ly different from Duccio’s both in its perspec- did, he would have seen it in use.58 Another tive and in its symbolism as an altar-tomb.55 Can example of this type of illusion can be found we really read meaning back into Duccio’s slightly later in the work of an anonymous painting based on something Bellini would do artist, known as the Master of Badia a Isola [8]. two hundred years later? Would the average Dated between 1310-1320, this large lunette of Sienese citizen have interpreted a Madonna and Child, measuring 124 by 147 Duccio’s architecture in this way? Victor cm (or about 4 by 5 feet), has painted consoles Schmidt and Keith Christiansen have offered that not only run along the bottom, but along examples of panels with what they view as sim- the arch as well, and were presumably intended ilar architectural elements running along the to allow the panel to appear attached to the bottom,56 both pointing for instance to Simone architectural setting for which it was originally Martini’s Saint John the Evangelist. However, made.59 The use of faux consoles was therefore

104 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

6. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Robert Lehman Collection, 1975. Giovanni Bellini, Madonna and Child, c. 1470.

understood here as an architectural setting, not probably slightly later than the Metropolitan as a balcony or parapet. Madonna, the Maestà is the only major example Duccio used this customary architectural of Duccio’s use of architecture, and it is also his motif differently from the artists in the above only signed work. This in fact con- examples due to the small scale of his works in tains a number of small panels depicting the which it appears. If we look at his most cele- type of architecture that is found in the ‘para- brated work, the Maestà, he provided clues as pet’. Only one of these includes corbels in a bal- to his own ideas about the application of this cony-like setting, and that is in the Temptation motif. Although it was begun in 1308, which is on the Temple. However, in the panels depict-

105 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

7. Assisi, upper church of St. Francis. Attributed to Giotto, the Dream of pope Innocent III, c. 1297-1299.

ing the Teaching in the Temple [9], and Judas using a miniature form of a monumental motif Taking the Bribe, the painted consoles, which to signify architecture at a great height. If we here are almost identical in both angle and style view the ‘parapet’ of the Metropolitan Ma- to those in the Metropolitan Madonna, have donna in light of Duccio’s own later work, it is been used to designate the top of a wall, or the not clear that this architecture refers to a bal- bottom edge of a roof - ‘not’ spaces where cony or parapet. What other purpose might this someone stands. In these, then, Duccio was device serve? Although one could argue that he

106 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

8. Montepulciano, Museo Civico. Master of Badia a Isola, Virgin and Child between Two Angels, c. 1310-1320.

was experimenting, I must stress again that his Madonna del latte is surrounded by saints62 and freedom of expression would only have gone so holds Christ on her right arm while nursing far. The Metropolitan Madonna was commis- him. It is also extremely large, measuring 67 by sioned by someone for his or her personal use, 50 inches (170,18 cm by 127 cm). However, the and the patron would have been paying for ‘parapet’ at the bottom is intriguingly similar, each element.60 Therefore, the cornice motif and it uses remarkably similar corbels and is must have fulfilled some desired effect request- even angled to offer the effect of looking at it ed by the patron, or at least must be thought of from below and to the left, just as Duccio’s in that context. painting does. As I mentioned above, the obvious, and most Could Duccio have seen this painting, and likely correct, comparison has been consistent- been inspired by it? It is possible, since it is ly drawn between Duccio’s painted consoles believed he spent seven years traveling,63 and if and those found at Assisi. The comparison is he was interested in Eastern art forms, S. Marco convincing, and yet making this identification was a major pilgrimage church that would have of his motif’s possible source really does not given him access to a wide variety of Byzantine offer any explanation for what it means to the images. It is also quite likely that there may painting. Only one image known to me appears have been other, now lost images circulating in to employ this architectural element in the same Italy that employed a similar device.64 As the way as Duccio’s, and it is a marian icon from the Venetian icon appears to be the only other sur- 13th century in S. Marco, Venice, known now as viving panel to include this same architectural the Madonna del latte [11]. Considered to be motif, however, I searched for explanations for from either a Veneto-Byzantine or Tuscan this work’s ‘parapet’. It is striking that while school, it strongly recalls Byzantine art, espe- this painting’s architecture is virtually the same cially in the Virgin’s gesture.61 Its similarities to as the Duccio, I have found no suggestion that the Metropolitan Madonna are minimal, for the it represents a balcony. The two exhibition cat-

107 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

9. Siena, Museo alogs in which the Madonna del latte appeared S. Marco image, they are not convincing when dell’Opera del simply stated that the architectural element was applied to Duccio’s painting. As a newly made Duomo. Duccio di 65 Buoninsegna, Maestà, an unusual feature in this type of painting. private piece for the home, it had no need for Teaching in the Victor Schmidt suggested it may have been modifications to accommodate an altar, some- temple, c. 1311. mounted within the church, and that the cor- thing it is doubtful the donor would have had.68 bels may possibly have been continued on the I was not, however, the only one to notice the wall as a sort of faux architecture.66 Belting’s similarity of this strange feature in these two explanation, however, was that Eastern panel paintings. Schmidt drew the comparison in his paintings were meant to be hung, and ill- recent book, but felt that the similarity was equipped to sit on the altar of the Western superficial and that the architecture did not church, therefore leading to improvised ways to serve the same function due to the difference in make the image transition between painting size and function of the paintings.69 Mojmir and mounted altarpiece.67 While either of these Frinta, however, in his 1987 article Searching for might offer a feasible explanation for the large an Adriatic Workshop with Byzantine Conne-

108 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

10. Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo. Madonna degli occhi grossi, mid 13th century.

ction, mentioned the two paintings in a foot- thought, and did not explore how this worked note, and suggested the architectural element with these images. Could he have been right? might refer to the tradition of attaching palladia And if so, how might we interpret Duccio’s above the gates in Constantinople70 and may be painting from this vastly different point of a record of a famous image in that type of view? At first it seems unlikely that this tiny installation.71 He went no further with his Sienese painting would make such a reference.

109 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

dating from the late 12th century, that has lozenges divided by bars along the sides, with a vine pattern, now barely visible, along the top and bottom.75 A similar border pattern can be found in a late 13th century manuscript illumi- nation of the Crucifixion from Acre, the capital of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.76 Dating to the third quarter of the 13th century, this minia- ture’s frame intersperses the lozenge and vine motifs. A third Crusader image, an icon of Saint George from Lydda or possibly Cyprus, dates from the mid 13th century and employs raised gesso vine patterns on both its frame and its background [12]. These distinctive floriated vines are nearly identical to those Duccio inscribed into the inner ‘frame’ of the Metropolitan Madonna, and similar types can be found in many other Crusader images. Athanasios Papageorgiou argued that since the specific combination of geometric and plant motifs appeared in both Crusader icons and Syriac manuscripts, it was probably com- ing to the West from Constantinople.77 Whether or not this Constantinopolitan origin is accepted, the combination of lozenges and vines may have signified an intentional and desired connection with the East. Thus, with a subtle scrawled design and a simple illusionis- tic architectural effect, employed as a sign rather than as realistic perspective, Duccio was able to allude to the grandeur of the 11. Venice, S. Marco. However, one unusual element of this painting, Constantinopolitan icon of the Virgin protec- Madonna del latte, never discussed in any depth,72 may lend sup- tively set up upon the gates, and more impor- 13th century. port to this possibility. I refer to the faintly tantly, to imbue this tiny painting with an etched decorative inner border, now very much immense amount of power for its owner.78 faded along with the rest of the gold. I would Why would an upper-class Italian living in argue, in fact, that it is highly important; I pro- Siena want such a reference in their home’s pose it acts as a frame within a frame. If so, it devotional image? It appears that the answer to may indicate that this painting is meant to be this question lies in Siena’s own history. The read as an image ‘of’ an image, which would often cited account by Niccolò di Ventura, who further support the possibility that Duccio was wrote of Siena’s history in the 1440’s, claimed referring to another painting. that when the city was under siege by the Although such decorative borders are not Florentines in September of 1260, one of its cit- unknown in panel paintings, Duccio’s incised izens, Buonaguida, gathered the people togeth- design is very distinct, and corresponds closely er and went to the cathedral.79 There the bish- to actual frame decoration of the time. It is op joined him, and the two went and knelt, and comprised of alternating lozenges and floriated in fact Buonaguida prostrated himself, before vines, each divided from the other by rectangu- the Madonna degli occhi grossi on the cathe- lar bars. The closest parallels for this type of dral’s altar [10]. They prayed, and Buonaguida decoration all fall within the Crusader art tradi- asked for the Virgin to protect Siena, vowing to tion.73 Crusader icons and manuscript illumina- dedicate the city to her in return.80 The battle- tions often combine lozenges and floral designs ground was veiled with a mysterious white mist, on their frames.74 For example, there is a and the next day, the Sienese defeated the Cypriot icon of the Mother of God Arakiotissa, Florentines in the battle of Montaperti.81

110 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

The details of this story may very well be later fabrications, as no contemporary accounts survive.82 There was, however, a historic battle at Montaperti against the Florentines, and the Sienese victory was a source of pride for cen- turies to come.83 It has come down through his- tory, via authors such as Niccolò di Ventura, that from 1260 on the city of Siena was believed to be under the Virgin’s protection.84 Rebecca Corrie has convincingly argued that a painting signed and dated 1261 by Coppo di Marco- valdo, known as the Madonna del Bordone, was meant to commemorate the victory over the Florentines as well as Siena’s amplified relation- ship with the Virgin [13].85 A drastic icono- graphic shift occurred here. The earlier Madonna degli occhi grossi was of a type derived from Romanesque Maestà sculpture - frontal, enthroned, and in slight relief.86 It is interesting to note that at least two large Madonnas of this type were made in around 1260, where it was a popular form of marian imagery. Perhaps the Ghibelline Sienese were reacting against the images preferred by their enemy, Guelph Florentines, for suddenly the Sienese created an entirely different Madonna to cele- brate their victory over Florence: a panel paint- ing that corresponded to the Byzantine image type referred to in art historical literature as the Hodegetria.87 That the Sienese would choose the famous Hodegetria of Constantinople as their model is not so strange. In Images of the Mother of God, Michele Bacci explained that by the 12th and 13th centuries the fame of the Hodegetria was wide- were intentionally fashioning themselves after 12. London, British spread outside of Constantinople, and many Byzantium’s greatest city. William Bowsky Museum. Crusader icon of Saint George cities not only copied the painting but also the pointed out the striking similarity between the and the youth rituals and miraculous properties associated with name of Siena’s financial magistracy, the of Mytilene, mid 88 it. This led to what Bacci termed the «cult of Biccherna, and Constantinople’s public office 13th century. 89 Constantinople’s palladium» in Italy. Rebecca district called the Blachernae, which he suggest- Corrie related this phenomenon to Siena: ed was intentional.92 The Sienese city seal depicted the Virgin and Child, as did the impe- «Byzantine art as the style of the major Mediterranean rial seal of Constantinople.93 Furthermore, capitals may have been of particular interest to cities on Annemarie Weyl Carr has pointed out that the the rise, such as Siena after Montaperti. A desire to rival use of the Virgin’s veil as a topos for her protec- other Mediterranean capitals, and Constantinople in particular, might have furthered Siena’s imitation and tion, an idea with long roots in Constantinople, importation of Byzantine and Byzantinizing art».90 was in use in Siena, for she has suggested that the white veil worn by Sienese Virgins is a ref- She went on to suggest that «the use of some erence to the protective white mist that veiled Byzantine elements in their image of the Virgin the battle of Montaperti.94 and Child might have been a means of associat- The most compelling evidence of emulation, ing Siena with Constantinople directly».91 at least for our purposes, is the fact that the When this idea is viewed in concert with other Sienese placed painted images of the Virgin on aspects of Siena, a possibility emerges that they their city gates. Although imagery was also

111 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

13. Siena, S. Maria dei Servi. Coppo di Marcovaldo, Madonna del Bordone, 1261.

112 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE employed over the gates of some other cities image to be installed before Duccio painted his such as Florence, Julian Gardner and Felicity Metropolitan Madonna.100 Ratté have pointed out that Siena was distinct In their very specific use of the Virgin and in using only painted imagery instead of sculp- Child imagery, the Sienese were intentionally ture, which was more common.95 Ratté especial- invoking the most powerful icon of the Virgin ly contended that these must have had an known at that time – one that had protected the apotropaic quality, echoing the earlier words of great city of Constantinople for centuries, and Judith Hook: one that still held power in 1261 when the Latin occupation ended, and the Hodegetria was tri- «Paintings of the Virgin on the city-gates, like those at umphantly processed through the streets of the Camollia and Porta Romana, were placed there to pro- city.101 By the time Duccio was painting his vide a magical defense at the city’s weakest points, for, Metropolitan Madonna, the imagery of the if the Virgin was Queen of Siena, she had certain obli- gations towards her city, including that of defending it Hodegetria type was firmly in place in Siena as from its enemies».96 the city’s protectress and ruler. I propose, there- fore, that Duccio’s Metropolitan Madonna is the Records survive in the Archivio di Stato di product of this civic marian cult. Much as the Siena that provide evidence of the Virgin grac- Sienese as a whole seem to have done, Duccio ing four of the gates, and Gardner has stated may have combined his own city’s protective that every gate bore her image following the Virgin with the greatest and most powerful pal- victory of Montaperti.97 The earliest surviving ladium of all, the Hodegetria of Constantinople. record is a commission from 1309, designating This was the ultimate miracle icon, both in its two artists to paint the Virgin and saints on the origin as a painting by Saint Luke102 and in its Porta Camollia, which was one of the main apotropaic quality, and Duccio found a way to entrances into the city. However, a carpenter recreate it for personal use, deftly increasing his was also included in the commission, and his version’s potency, and counterbalancing its task was to ‘repair’ the roof over the image.98 It small scale, by depicting it in its traditional pro- is logical, then, that there may have been an tective position above the gates.103 image there previously since the roof already In conclusion, the interpretations I have put existed, and its function was to protect the forth squarely place this painting into the realm painting from the elements. Records show that of the icon, for they mean Duccio was con- the image on the Porta Camollia was main- sciously and intentionally referring to and tained through repainting over the course of at recreating both established Byzantine images least the next fifty years, with repairs made in and monumental paintings in Siena in order to 1333, 1346, and 1362.99 The shortest period of retain their power and meaning. Although we time between these is thirteen years. Therefore, may never know for sure what Duccio intend- if the commission of 1309 was for a ‘repainting’, ed, or how this image was actually used, I hope it is likely that the original image would have to have at least demonstrated that the accepted already been in place before 1300. This possi- ideas about the Metropolitan Madonna are not bility is further supported by the fact that the the only possible interpretations, and that per- antiporta for the Porta Camollia was completed haps it is us, not Duccio, who must break free by 1270, therefore allowing ample time for an of convention.

NOTES Metropolitan Museum’s press release states it is most com- monly known as the Stroganoff Madonna after its first I am deeply grateful to Dr. Lawrence Nees of the University recorded owner, Count Grigorii Stroganoff. However, the of Delaware for his endless support and guidance, and to Dr. painting is also known by the name of Adolphe Stoclet, the Anne Derbes for offering her advice and encouraging me to man who purchased it after Stroganoff’s death in 1910, and pursue these ideas. I would also like to thank Dr. Gary Vikan whose family sold it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. and the Walters Art Museum for providing financial support Although the museum has chosen to title the piece simply for this publication. Madonna and Child, I have decided for clarity to refer to it here as the Metropolitan Madonna. For the press release, 1 This painting, having no known original title, is referred see Metropolitan Museum of Art, Early Renaissance to by the names of its two documented owners. The Masterpiece by Duccio Acquired by Metropolitan Museum,

113 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

press release (November 10, 2004), p. 1. This can be found SCHMIDT, Painted Piety: Panel Paintings for Personal on the museum’s website in the «Press Room» - Press Devotion in , 1250-1400, Firenze 2005, pp. 141- Release Archive, November 2004. Available: www.metmu- 158. See also CHRISTIANSEN, Duccio, pp. 50-52 for the most seum.org/Press_Room/full_release.asp?prid. recent discussion of this, which expands upon the wall text 2 J. WHITE, Duccio: Tuscan art and the medieval workshop, and offers similar arguments to Schmidt’s. New York 1979, p. 63, dates it to 1295-1300; Metropolitan 9 CHRISTIANSEN, The Metropolitan’s Duccio, p. 46. Museum of Art, Early Renaissance Masterpiece, p. 2, dates 10 STUBBLEBINE, Duccio di Buoninsegna, p. 28; B. HEAL, it to c. 1300; K. CHRISTIANSEN, The Metropolitan’s Duccio, ‘Civitas Virginis’? The significance of civic dedication to the «Apollo», CLXV (2007), pp. 40- 47: 47, suggests a broad- Virgin for the development of Marian imagery in Siena before er range of 1295-1305. 1311, in Art, Politics and Civic Religion in Central Italy, 3 Metropolitan Museum of Art, Early Renaissance Master- 1261-1352: Essays by Postgraduate Students at the Courtauld piece, p. 2. Institute of Art, ed. J. Cannon and B. Williamson, Aldershot 4 I will be quoting from two sets of wall text from the 2000, pp. 295-305: 300; CHRISTIANSEN, Duccio, p. 55. Duccio exhibition – one which was the main text to intro- 11 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 370, as quoted in duce the exhibition, and one which labeled the CHRISTIANSEN, The Metropolitan’s Duccio, p. 44. Metropolitan Madonna itself. Both are available online. 12 CHRISTIANSEN, Duccio, p. 55. The quote I have included here is from the Metropolitan 13 WHITE, Duccio, p. 24. White believes Duccio may have Madonna wall text, which can be found on the museum’s invented this gesture. He discusses it more in terms of the website: Duccio di Buoninsegna: Madonna and Child gesture found in the Crevole Madonna, which is essential- (2004.442), in « History», available: ly the same as that found in the Metropolitan Madonna, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/07/eust/hod_2004. and sees it as Christ acknowledging his future passion, 442.htm. The main texts about Duccio and his time that and his mother’s intuition of it because he reaches up to introduced the visitor to the exhibition are also available comfort her. However, the main reason he gives for read- online, at http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Duccio/ ing it this way is that the red color under her veil, which duccio_more.htm#4. he touches, alludes to the blood he will shed later. This 5 Indeed, Hans Belting did term Duccio’s paintings ‘icons’. red color is not repeated in the Metropolitan Madonna, H. BELTING, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image however. Before the Era of Art, trans. E. Jephcott, Chicago 1994, 14 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, pp. XXI, 458-490. If we p. 370. consider Hans Belting’s influential view, thinking of 6 It should be noted, however, that the Metropolitan Duccio’s painting this way would be highly anachronistic, Madonna has been mostly inaccessible until its purchase for he has argued that art as we think of it did not begin to by the Metropolitan Museum in 2004, for it was still in pri- be produced for another two hundred years. vate hands, and only a turn-of-the-century black-and-white 15 Metropolitan Museum, Early Renaissance Masterpiece, photograph of it was known. Consequently, it shows up in p. 1. very few discussions of Duccio’s paintings, and most other 16 G. LONEY, $45 Million ‘Stroganoff Madonna’ discussions draw on these few. The fundamental publica- on View, «Curator’s Choice», January (2005), tions, with earlier literature, are two influential mono- http://www.nymuseums.com/lm04124t.htm. Loney points graphs written in 1979, one by John White, referred to in out, «This staggering sum for a small piece of wood has note 2 above, and another by J. H. STUBBLEBINE, Duccio di been paid out of the Met’s Acquisitions Fund. They could Buoninsegna and his school, Princeton 1979. Only recently have bought a lot of Andy Warhol prints for that money. has new information been published, primarily by the Or even a small collection of Pre-Raphaelite paintings by Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Curator of European Burne-Jones and others of his ilk». Paintings, Keith Christiansen. See CHRISTIANSEN, The 17 This raises an interesting question: why is the Metropolitan’s Duccio, pp. 40-47, and ID., Duccio and the Metropolitan Museum of Art referring to c. 1300 as the start Origins of , New York 2009. of the Renaissance, as they do imply in the title of their press 7 Duccio exhibition wall text (see note 4). The text states release? This view is one perpetuated by Giorgio Vasari, as that «The Madonna is shown as though standing behind a in his The Lives of the Artists: Volume I, trans. G. Bull, parapet». Other authors who have spoken of it in similar Baltimore 1987, pp. 45-81, and has long since been reeval- terms are WHITE, Duccio, p. 62. He states that «it now uated, with the Renaissance usually having its inception in stands as the first, lonely forerunner of that long line of the Quattrocento. This dating is typical in modern scholar- Italian Madonnas with a parapet»; STUBBLEBINE, Duccio di ship, such as in D. NORMAN, Painting in Late Medieval and Buoninsegna, p. 28, says the parapet imposes a specific Renaissance Siena, 1260-1555, New Haven 2003, in which viewpoint on viewer, and also removes the Madonna and Norman gives the starting date of 1420 to her chapter on Child from space of the viewer. He connects this motif to «Renaissance Painting in Siena». It has literally become the those by Giotto in Assisi; Duccio: alle origini della pittura textbook definition of Renaissance dating, as can be found senese (exhib. cat. S. Maria della Scala, Museo dell’Opera in F. HARTT, History of Italian Renaissance Art: Painting, del Duomo, Siena, Oct. 4, 2003-Jan. 11, 2004), a cura di A. Sculpture, Architecture, New Jersey 1994, pp. 104-132, Bagnoli, Milano 2003, p. 136. This exhibition catalog where Hartt places Trecento Sienese art into his chapter on equates the parapet to a windowsill supported by a row of the «Late ». In fact, the Metropolitan consoles, and also relates it to Giotto and Assisi. Museum’s own timeline on its website places Duccio in the 8 Duccio exhibition wall text. Victor Schmidt has recently later Middle Ages, and as an example of «Private Devotion expanded the discussion of this element of the painting, in Medieval Christianity», not the Renaissance. Under although he argues for the same interpretation. See V. Department of European Paintings, see Italian Painting of

114 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE the Later Middle Ages, in Timeline of Art History, 34 For more on the very complicated issue of Crusader art http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/iptg/hd_iptg.htm. of this period, see J. FOLDA, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, It is strange that in their press release and initial discus- from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187–1291, New sions of the Duccio acquisition, the museum perpetuated York 2005. In ibid., p. 526, he points out that while we earlier narratives such as Vasari’s, in which artists such as know this art, and especially icon paintings, played an Duccio and Giotto are promoted as the Renaissance’s important role in transmitting Eastern ideas and had a founding fathers. strong impact on Western art of this time, the exact 18 Duccio exhibition wall text. process of transmission has yet to be sorted out fully. See 19 Metropolitan Museum, Early Renaissance Masterpiece, p. 3. also R. CORRIE, Coppo di Marcovaldo’s Madonna del bor- 20 Many images exist that were originally inscribed done and the Meaning of the Bare-Legged Christ Child in ‘Eleousa’ by their makers, and not all are in the same pose Siena and the East, «Gesta», XXXV (1996), pp. 43-65. but rather carry the same sentiment. Examples of these can 35 H.B.J. MAGINNIS, The World of the Early Sienese be found in the exhibition catalog Mother of God: Painter, trans. of the Sienese Breve dell’Arte dei pittori by Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art (exhib. cat. G. Erasmi, University Park, Pennsylvania 2001, p. 169. Benaki Museum, Athens, 2000), ed. M. Vassilaki, Milan For a fascinating new discussion of the interaction 2000, nos. 67, 69, 73, 75, 76, 80. between people, images, and their prototypes, with possi- 21 The small icon referred to here was on display at the ble roots in the Mediterranean but enacted in Siena dur- Metropolitan Museum, one floor below the Duccio exhibi- ing Duccio’s time, see J. CANNON, Kissing the Virgin’s tion. This work, a delicate micro-mosaic dating to the early Foot: Adoratio before the Madonna and Child Enacted, 14th century and considered to be Constantinopolitan, Depicted, Imagined, «Studies in Iconography», XXXI offers a remarkably strong parallel to the Duccio (2010), pp. 1-50. Madonna. In light of the numerous parallels of both com- 36 THOMAS OF CELANO, First and Second Life of St. Francis, position and feeling between the two images, and the fact trans. P. Hermann, Chicago 1962. that their creators were contemporaries, it is surprising 37 MAGINNIS, The World of the Early Sienese Painter, p. 167. that the mosaic was not included in the Duccio exhibition, 38 For an excellent discussion of Catherine’s story and its although it might have challenged rather than supported relationship to art, see V.M. SCHMIDT, Painting and the assertion that Duccio was doing something revolution- Individual Devotion in Late Medieval Italy: The Case of St. ary. At the very least, the absence of the mosaic prevented Catherine of Alexandria, in Visions of Holiness: art and viewers from making the comparison and coming to their devotion in Renaissance Italy, ed. A. Ladis and S. E. Zuraw, own conclusions. Athens, Georgia 2001, pp. 21-36: 21-22. 22 This term ‘Hodegetria’ specifically refers to the icon of 39 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 197. the Virgin and Child housed in the Hodegoi church in 40 Ibid., p. 203. Constantinople, which was venerated for its miraculous 41 Ibid., pp. 305, 348-352. qualities, and which is believed to have depicted the Virgin 42 A. CUTLER, Originality as a Cultural Phenomenon, in with Christ on her left arm. However, the term has also Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art, and Music: a collec- come to be used in modern scholarship to describe images tion of essays, ed. A.R. Littlewood, Oxford 1995, pp. 203- similar to this miraculous painting, and it is important to 216; repr. in Byzantium, Italy and the North: Papers on note that this was not a label used with any consistency in Cultural Relations, London 2000, p. 36. Citations are to the the Medieval era. For a clear and concise explanation of London edition. this issue, see R. MANIURA, Pilgrimage to Images in the 43 A.W. CARR, Threads of Authority: the Virgin Mary’s Veil Fifteenth Century: The Origins of the Cult of Our Lady of in the Middle Ages, in Robes and Honor: the Medieval Czestochowa,Woodbridge 2004, pp. 23-24. Maniura World of Investiture, ed. S. Gordon, Basingstoke, explains it best by suggesting, «These labels must be seen Hampshire 2001, pp. 77-78. Annemarie Weyl Carr has as epithets attaching to the Virgin herself and not a formal suggested another possible way of understanding this image type». iconography. She views it in light of the Virgin’s veil as a 23 J.H. STUBBLEBINE, Byzantine Influence in Thirteenth- metaphor for protection at the time. Carr suggests that the Century Italian Panel Painting, «Dumbarton Oaks Metropolitan Madonna was a first step toward the ideas Papers», XX (1966), pp. 85-102: 99-100. achieved in his London triptych of 1315, in which the 24 WHITE, Duccio, p. 57. Child grabs the veil and pulls it across his bare chest. In the 25 A. DERBES, Siena and the Levant in the Later Dugento, latter image, she suggests the veil is meant to «cloak her «Gesta», XXVIII (1989), pp. 190-204. child’s divinity and shroud his mortality», and that the thin 26 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 3. fabric is «powerless to protect». This is certainly a convinc- 27 Ibid., p. 262. ing interpretation of the London triptych. However, as the 28 Ibid., p. 58. Child in the Metropolitan Madonna does not pull the fab- 29 Metropolitan Madonna wall text. ric toward himself, nor is he mostly nude and vulnerable as 30 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 203. he is in the London work, I would suggest perhaps there is 31 Ibid., p. 330. another possible interpretation for the gesture here. 32 C. BERTELLI, The Image of Pity in Santa Croce in Geru- Perhaps, beyond the interpretation I suggest above, the salemme, in Essays in the history of art presented to Rudolf gesture of the Child grabbing the veil may be a way to Wittkower, ed. D. Fraser, H. Hibbard & M.J. Lewine, emphasize her protective abilities, which would further London 1967, pp. 40-55. Most recently, see R. CORMACK, heighten the apotropaic quality of the painting. M. VASSILIKI, Byzantium, 330-1453, London 2008. 44 See note 12. 33 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 341. 45 See Anne Derbes’ discussion of this iconography in her

115 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

book Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy: Narrative including pigment tests and X-rays, all of which revealed Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and the Levant, Cambridge the painting to be «entirely consistent with others from the 1996. period». See this rebuttal in R. POGREBIN, Authenticity of a 46 Triptych with Man of Sorrows, Mother of Sorrows, and Duccio Masterpiece at the Met is Challenged, «New York John (image when closed depicts two Dominican friars), c. Times», July 8 (2006), available: http://www.nytimes.com/ 1300. This work offers a perfect comparison, as Mary’s 2006/07/08/arts/design/08ducc.html. Beck’s point of pose, gesture, glance, and use of her own veil to dab her departure, that of the problematic making the architectur- eyes are nearly identical. It is in a private collection in the al motif in the Duccio painting a parapet and forerunner of Netherlands, and I was unable to secure the rights to the later motif by Bellini et al, however, perhaps has some reproduce the image here. It has recently been published validity. See the above discussion for an alternative view. in A. DERBES, A. NEFF, Italy, the Mendicant Orders, and the 54 WHITE, Duccio, p. 62. Byzantine Sphere in Byzantium: Faith and Power 55 R. GOFFEN, Giovanni Bellini, New Haven 1989, p. 34. (1261–1557), ed. H. C. Evans, New York 2004, pp. 448- 56 SCHMIDT, Painted Piety, pp. 145-149; CHRISTIANSEN, 461: 457, fig. 14.14. For a full discussion of the triptych, Duccio, pp. 50-52. see H.W. VAN OS, The Discovery of an Early Man of 57 CHRISTIANSEN, The Metropolitan’s Duccio, p. 46. Sorrows on a Dominican Triptych, «Journal of the Warburg Christiansen suggests the angling of the consoles this way and Courtauld Institutes», XLI (1978), pp. 65-75. may mean that the painting was meant to be viewed while 47 M. BACCI, The Legacy of the Hodegetria: holy icons and kneeling. legends between East and West, in Images of the Mother of 58 Metropolitan Museum, Early Renaissance Masterpiece, p. God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. M. 4; STUBBLEBINE, Duccio di Buoninsegna, p. 28; WHITE, Vassilaki, Aldershot 2005, pp. 321-336: 325. Duccio, p. 62; Duccio alle origini della pittura senese, 48 M. ALEXIOU, Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition, pp. 134-136. Cambridge 1974, pp. 68-69. The Virgin cries, «give way to 59 V. S CHMIDT, The Lunette Shaped Panel and Some me, men, that I may reach him who was fed on the milk of Characteristics of Panel Painting, in Italian panel painting of my breasts…». For further discussion of this and other the and Trecento, ed. V. M. Schmidt, Washington Byzantine works that connect the Virgin’s early mother- D.C. 2002, pp. 83-101: 85. Schmidt says it was most likely hood with the Passion, see also A. DERBES, Byzantine Art «an overdoor or part of sepulchral monument». In ID., and the Dugento: Iconographic Sources of the Passion Scenes Painted Piety, p. 144, the author specifically compares this in Italian Painted Crosses, Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia painting to the Duccio, and concludes the corbels do not 1980, pp. 209-210, 252, nn. 22-24; H. MAGUIRE, Art and have the same function in both works since the architec- Eloquence in Byzantium, Princeton 1981, pp. 91-108. ture in the Montepulciano work is intended to embed the 49 DERBES, Byzantine Art and the Dugento, p. 252, nn. 22- painting in the wall. The Metropolitan Museum has how- 24; CORRIE, Coppo di Marcovaldo’s Madonna del Bordone, ever cited this painting as proof of the contemporary use of pp. 43-65. a parapet motif in Duccio’s sphere in POGREBIN, 50 This diptych offers important parallels to the Authenticity of a Duccio Masterpiece, p. 2. Metropolitan Madonna in several ways. It couples the two 60 MAGINNIS, The World of the Early Sienese Painter, p. 109. components Duccio blends together, and its small scale Maginnis notes that «the size and variety of content, limit- indicates that it was also intended for private devotional ed or extensive, were undoubtedly determined by the use (each panel measuring 32.4 by 22.8 cm, or about 13 by patron’s expenditure». 9 inches). On both the Duccio and the Umbrian paintings, 61 Il Museo di San Marco, ed. I. Favaretto, M. Da Villa a decorative inner frame can be found within an engaged Urbani, Venice 2003, p. 103. frame. Intriguingly, in both of these the inner frames only 62 Ibid. The saints are identified as Peter, Paul, Mark, run along the top and the sides of the image, which, Nicholas, the Magdalene, and Margaret. Along the top although not completely unique, appears to be an unusual edge of the frame are archangels flanking a Christ design element in paintings from this period. Pantocrator, whose book reads «I am the light of the 51 CORRIE, Coppo di Marcovaldo’s Madonna del Bordone, p. 58. World». 52 DERBES, Picturing the Passion, p. 28. 63 Although we have official documentation for much of his 53 The unusual feature of the ‘parapet’ has in fact recently life, there is a gap in the documents during the period of led to the suggestion that this painting could not be gen- the Metropolitan Madonna’s creation, between 1295 and uine. In July 2006, the attribution to Duccio and c. 1300 1302. See Duccio di Buoninsegna: The Documents and Early date of the painting was challenged by James Beck. Beck Sources, ed. J.I. Satkowski, H.B.J. Maginnis, Athens, GA asserted that the Duccio painting must be a later forgery 2000, pp. 63-64. It has therefore been suggested by some since the idea of a parapet creating a plane in front of the scholars that Duccio traveled during this time, and their figures would have been anachronistic in Duccio’s time, thoughts on where he went range from Rome, to Paris, and and is «a characteristic of Renaissance, not Medieval pic- even to parts of the Byzantine world. STUBBLEBINE, Duccio tures».See the article: D. ALBERGE, $50m ‘Masterpiece’ is di Buoninsegna, p. 4, suggests other regions of Italy, partic- Poor Forgery, Says Arts Professor, «The Times Online», ularly Rome, and possibly Paris; WHITE, Duccio, p. 56, July (2006), available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/arti- suggests it is possible he could have ventured into the cle/0,,11069-2257809,00.html. The possibility that this Byzantine world, which could be achieved by simply going painting is a later forgery has been dismissed by the to the «Eastern shores of the Adriatic» which would have Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as leading Duccio artistically been viewed as Byzantine outposts. He does scholars such as Luciano Bellosi, who assert that the piece not, however, see any evidence that Duccio did so. D. has been analyzed both stylistically and scientifically, NORMAN, Duccio: the recovery of a reputation, in Siena,

116 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

Florence, and Padua: Art, Society, and Religion 1280-1400, was considerable awareness of and interest in the Crusades ed. D. Norman, New Haven 1995, pp. 49-71: 55-57. in Siena by the time Duccio was creating the Metropolitan Norman believes he may have traveled to Cyprus, for she Madonna. It is not impossible that this painting was creat- cites a mural there that may be the prototype on which ed for someone with this interest, or who was in some way Duccio based his Madonna of the Franciscans, painted involved in the Crusades. between 1295 and 1300. 74 D. MOURIKI, Thirteenth-century Icon Painting in Cyprus, 64 E.B. GARRISON, Note on the Survival of Thirteenth- Athens 1986, pp. 15-16. She points out that the specific Century Panel Paintings in Italy, «The Art Bulletin», LIV combination of floral geometric patterns appears frequent- (1972), p. 140. Garrison points out the percentage of panel ly in Syriac manuscripts. paintings lost from this period is incredibly high – possibly 75 Mother of God, no. 62. as much as 99%. 76 I was unable to secure rights to publish this image, 65 Ibid.; Venezia e Bisanzio (cat. della mostra, Venezia, , Biblioteca Capitolare. Ms. 6, fol. 182v. See H. Palazzo Ducale, 8 giugno-30 settembre 1974), ed. I. BUCHTHAL, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Furlan, G. Mariacher, Milan 1974, nr. 66. Jerusalem, Oxford 1957. Reprint, London 1986, pl. 57a. 66 SCHMIDT, Painted Piety, p. 143. 77 Mother of God, no. 62, p. 406. Athanasios Papageorgiou 67 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 203. argues this in the catalog entry for the icon of the Mother 68 SCHMIDT, Painting and Individual Devotion, p. 31. of God Arakiotissa. 69 SCHMIDT, Painted Piety, p. 143. 78 C. BARBER, Figure and likeness: on the limits of repre- 70 NIKETAS CHONIATES, O City of Byzantium: Annals of sentation in Byzantine iconoclasm, Princeton 2002, p. 29. Niketas Choniatïs, trans. H. I. Magoulias, Detroit 1984, pp. He explains that the «icon could be a copy of a miracu- 209-210. In the Annals it states that in 1186, when John lous image and still claim the same status as the original. Branas’ army was about to attack Constantinople, the Thus, the painted icon must be understood as both a Emperor Isaakios Angelos called on the Virgin to protect depiction and a relic». See also G. VIKAN, Ruminations the city. «He carried up to the top of the walls, as an on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of impregnable fortress and an unassailable palisade, the icon Byzantium, in Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, of the Mother of God taken from the monastery of the Copies, and Reproductions, ed. K. Preciado, Washington Hodegoi where it had been assigned, and therefore called 1989, pp. 47-59. Hodegetria». 79 D. NORMAN, Painting in Late Medieval and Renaissance 71 M.S. FRINTA, Searching for an Adriatic painting workshop Siena, 1260-1555, New Haven 2003, p. 41. with Byzantine Connection, «Zograf», XVIII (1987), pp. 80 The concept of the Virgin and Child being called on as a 12-20: 12, n. 6. An article that has recently been called to city’s protectors, and their image being invoked as a palla- my attention and that makes this argument more fully is dium against enemies has obvious roots in Constantinople, J.T. WOLLESEN, The Case of the Disappeared Stoclet but it had also been adopted in other parts of the West. For Madonna, «Pantheon», LVI (1998), pp. 4-9. He does not instance, see F. PRADO-VILAR, The Gothic Anamorphic appear to be aware of Frinta’s thought on this, and seems Gaze: Regarding the Worth of Others in Under the to have come up with a similar theory independently. Influence: Questioning the Comparative in Medieval Although he does argue that this image is intended to show Castile, ed. C. Robinson and L. Rouhi, Leiden 2005, pp. the Hodegetria of Constantinople in situ, he does not 67-100: 79-81. Prado-Vilar relates that in the Cantigas de appear to consider it to retain its icon status, but rather Santa Maria, created in Spain in the late 13th century for believes it to be a «variation of an official Madonna and King Alfonso X, Mary was «presented as head and protec- Child configuration (…) in order to make it fit into a new tor of an inclusive national identity». In Cantiga 292, the and unprecedented context of the private pictorial and king says that when going into battle against the Moors, his devotional realm of Western panel paintings». It is inter- father carried a statue of the Virgin with him, and whenev- esting to note that this idea put forth by both Frinta and er he conquered one of their cities, he put an image of the Wollesen has not been mentioned by the Metropolitan Virgin on the gate of the mosque. One of the illuminations Museum, nor does it appear to have had any impact on shows Muslim and Christian soldiers marching together their, or anyone else’s, perceptions of the Metropolitan under the banner of the Virgin during the siege of Madonna. Marrakesh. When they were victorious, they attributed 72 CHRISTIANSEN, The Metropolitan’s Duccio, p. 44. much of their success to the Virgin’s help. Christiansen briefly describes the border’s design and 81 H.W. VAN OS, Sienese Altarpieces, 1215-1460: Form, con- relates it to a few other borders used by Duccio in terms of tent, function, trans. M. Hoyle, Groningen 1984, p. 11. how it helps date the painting, but he goes no further with 82 HEAL, ‘Civitas Virginis’?, p. 297. his analysis of the design itself. He does, however, discuss 83 WALEY, Siena and the Sienese, p. 116. it as original to the painting, and states that it is not a 84 HEAL, ‘Civitas Virginis’?, p. 297. Heal has argued that punched design but is «entirely hand-inscribed and of Ventura’s story, and in general the intense dedication to the great elegance». Virgin in the 13th century was a later fabrication read back 73 D.P. WALEY, Siena and the Sienese in the Thirteenth into the city’s history. She believes it was the spirituality of Century, Cambridge 1991, pp. 149-150. It was common for the mendicants that stimulated the marian cult, and that the Sienese of both genders to designate considerable parts the commune worked to propagate the concept of the of their wills to the aid of the Crusaders and their expedi- Virgin as protectress of Siena only by the early 14th centu- tions, especially in the last quarter of the 13th century. The ry. She suggests that earlier art and events were reinterpret- brethren at S. Maria della Scala are even known to have ed to build up the cult which was firmly in place by the included the Crusaders in their prayers. Therefore, there time of the unveiling of Duccio’s Maestà. If we accept her

117 LYNLEY ANNE HERBERT

interpretation, the mechanisms of propaganda would still and its special devotions». have been well underway by the time Duccio was painting 97 MAGINNIS, The World of the Early Sienese Painter, p. 132. the Metropolitan Madonna in 1300, since by 1302 the The four gates identified as having images of the Virgin are commune was paying him for a Maestà panel for the Nine the Porta Camollia (known through commission records), (Siena’s leaders), and in 1308 he was given a huge commis- the Porta Romana (known only through an eyewitness sion to paint the city’s new monumental Maestà altarpiece, account), the Porta Salaia (known through a commission the ultimate statement of dedication to the Virgin by the for a roof over it), and the Porta San Viene (known from a city of Siena. For these commission records see commission - this was actually a panel painting). I should SATKOWSKI, MAGINNIS, Duccio di Buoninsegna: The note that even in light of such overt declarations of devo- Documents, pp. 66, 69-71. tion, Hayden Maginnis expresses his doubts about the 85 R. CORRIE, The Political Meaning of Coppo di Marco- spiritual character of Sienese art, and of the Sienese them- valdo’s Madonna and Child in Siena, «Gesta», XXIX selves; GARDNER, An Introduction, p. 212. (1990), 1, pp. 61-75: 62. Although Coppo was a Florentine, 98 MAGINNIS, The World of the Early Sienese Painter, p. 131. she argues that he was imprisoned after the battle and this The two painters are Ciecco and Nuccio, and the carpen- painting was his payment for his freedom. ter is a man named Chello. Maginnis assumes it is a «roof 86 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 387. projecting over the image to shield it, at least partially, from 87 Perhaps it is no coincidence that in 1261, the same year the weather». The archive he cites is ASS, Biccherna 122, that Coppo painted his Madonna for Siena, the power of fol. 201v. the Hodegetria was reinstated in Constantinople. This tim- 99 Ibid. I would suggest that the faithful repainting of the ing may have been persuasive in the Sienese choice to emu- Virgin on the gate over this stretch of time, by lesser artists late that image. Rebecca Corrie, in Coppo di Marcovaldo’s and not by the city’s famous painters, might support the Madonna del Bordone, p. 58, believes that the protective concept of a functional, protective purpose for these power of the Byzantine Virgin type would have been rec- images rather than a strictly artistic one. ognized by the Sienese. 100 GARDNER, An Introduction, p. 212. 88 BACCI, The Legacy of the Hodegetria, p. 323. 101 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 75. 89 Ibid., pp. 324-327. An example of this is found in the 102 For an excellent discussion of when and how the monastery of S. Maria del Patir in Calabria where a careful Hodegetria came to be viewed as a Saint Luke painting, see copy of the Hodegetria was known as the Neodigitria or M. BACCI, With the Paintbrush of the Evangelist Luke, in «New Hodegetria» by 1111. Mother of God, pp. 79-89. According to Bacci, the 90 CORRIE, The Political Meaning, p. 68. Hodegetria icon, or the icon that belonged to the Hodegoi 91 Ibid., n.79. monastery of Constantinople, was probably not initially 92 W.M. BOWSKY, The Finance of the Commune of Siena, believed to be by Saint Luke, but was labeled as a Saint 1287-1355, Oxford 1970, p. 2.; CORRIE, The Political Luke icon well after it was painted. He believes it probably Meaning, n.79. She notes this connection as well. gained this reputation because the Hodegoi monastery had 93 B.V. PENTCHEVA, The ‘activated’ icon: the Hodegetria pro- connections with Antioch, Luke’s birthplace, and because cession and Mary’s Eisodos in Images of the Mother of God, of the miracles it performed. pp. 195-207: 196. Her discussion includes two imperial 103 I should note that I have looked at the gates of Siena to seals from Constantinople – one from the 7th century and see if there is any correlation between the built structure one from the 11th. Although they change somewhat over and Duccio’s corbels. While there appears to be some time, this demonstrates a long tradition of the Madonna similar corbelling very high on the walls on some of the and Child on the Byzantine imperial seal. gates, such as can be seen near the top of the Porta 94 CARR, Threads of Authority, p. 77. Romana’s antiporta, it does not correspond to where the 95 F. R ATTÉ, Architectural Invitations: Images of City Gates image would likely have been placed on the gate. in Medieval Italian Painting, «Gesta», XXXVIII (1999), Presumably the image would have adorned the front of pp. 142-153: 143; J. GARDNER, An Introduction to the the main gate, where today a small roof protrudes to pro- Iconography of the Medieval Italian City Gate, vide shelter. There is, however, a small ledge along the «Dumbarton Oaks Papers» (Studies on Art and Archeology bottom of that niche. It is possible there was such a ledge in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday), beneath the painting in Duccio’s time as well, and per- XLI (1987), pp. 199-213: 212. haps it looked much like the one he employs. I would still 96 J. HOOK, Siena, a City and its History, London 1979, p. argue, however, that Duccio was most likely using a com- 132; RATTÉ, Architectural Invitations, pp. 142-143; CORRIE, mon artistic convention when he painted his corbels, and Coppo di Marcovaldo’s Madonna del Bordone, p. 57. Corrie was probably not concerned with a precise rendering of agrees that images on the gates would have «acknowledged the built environment, since that was not yet common and perhaps assured her protection»; STUBBLEBINE, Duccio practice. di Buoninsegna, p. 122. He sees these images of the Virgin as less of a protective force in the Byzantine sense, and PHOTO CREDITS more as part of a system of signs, «signs in the popular use 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 (Art Resource) of the term and signs as emblems of ideas and means of 1, 6 (Art Stor’s Images for Academic Publishing) propaganda. Images of the Virgin on the city gates, in the 5 (London, The Royal Collectionnof Her Majesty the Queen) cathedral, on the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala, or 8 (Montepulciano, Museo civico) in the Palazzo Publico told visitors of the city’s dedication 11 (Venezia, San Marco) 12 (London, British Museum)

118 DUCCIO’S METROPOLITAN MADONNA: BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND THE RENAISSANCE

LA MADONNA DI DUCCIO DEL METROPOLITAN: TRA BISANZIO E IL RINASCIMENTO Lynley Anne Herbert

Nell’autunno del 2004 il Metropolitan dal Rinascimento, ma in avanti, da una pro- Museum of Art di New York ha acquistato una spettiva medievale e bizantina. Gli elementi piccola tavola dipinta da Duccio di Buonin- umani utilizzati da Duccio – considerati una segna per 45 milioni di dollari. Una spesa di tale novità – potrebbero effettivamente essere una entità è stata giustificata esaltando Duccio, e in sintesi creativa di citazioni ed evocazioni delle particolare questa tavola, come una delle prime icone orientali. Considerato alla luce delle espressioni del Rinascimento. Il Museo ha ricerche di Hans Belting sulla trasmissione affermato che l’opera mostra una chiara e con- delle icone, tali citazioni orientali potrebbero sapevole rottura rispetto alle raffigurazioni rigi- indicare l’intenzione di infondere il potere spi- de e schematizzate, considerate caratteristiche rituale delle icone in questo dipinto. Il contri- delle tradizioni occidentale e bizantina. Le basi buto suggerisce, inoltre, che la Madonna del di tale affermazione risiedono sia nella nuova Metropolitan è stata progettata per evocare interazione, intensamente umana e naturalisti- specifiche tradizioni all’interno del culto ca, creata da Duccio tra Maria e Cristo, sia nella mariano nella città natale di Duccio, Siena. presenza di un insolito elemento architettonico, Molti indizi, infine, inducono a ritenere che definito parapetto, che è interpretato come il nella Madonna del Metropolitan Duccio abbia precursore di un motivo utilizzato da Giovanni fatto riferimento e abbia ricreato sia tipi bizan- Bellini e da altri artisti del Quattrocento. tini consolidati, sia opere civiche senesi, tra- Questo contributo esplora nuovi modi di sformando abilmente il loro potere e il loro vedere la Madonna del Metropolitan di significato allo scopo di farne un’immagine Duccio – non guardando all’indietro, a partire devozionale privata.

119